Religion
Related: About this forumUnited States: liberal reform of Catholic Church spawning new religious movements
http://religion.info/english/articles/article_585.shtmlRichard Cimino - Religion Watch
28 Sep 2012
The effort to reform the Catholic Church along liberal lines may result less in changing the church than in generating new movements and churches completely outside of official Catholicism. That is one of the conclusions of the new book Underground Church (Brill), by sociologist Kathleen Kautzer of Regis College in Massachusetts.
The book provides a rare and comprehensive examination of liberal and radical Catholic groups and movements in the U.S. The book is based on extensive fieldwork among such reformist groups as Corpus (consisting of former priests), Dignity (gay Catholics), Women's Ordination Conference (WOC), and Voice of the Faithful (a group that formed over the priest sex abuse crisis in the American church), as well as more radical groups that have made a complete break with the church (such as schismatic parishes and some feminist groups).
In tracing the histories of these groups, Kautzer notes how they have gradually evolved from optimistic efforts of reform of the church based on a liberal interpretation and appropriation of Vatican II to a far more contentious and eventually pessimistic stance regarding the possibility of significant change in the church. Of course, the level of demands for liberal reform vary with each group. The author shows that the Voice of the Faithful (VOTF), the most moderate of the groups she studied, was able to exert pressure on dioceses and other church structures to make some policy changes, at least on the pressing issue of clergy sex abuse.
The abuse issue had given the reform movement a “second wind,” but groups such VOTF were “dealt a fatal blow,” when Pope Benedict XVI became more active in addressing issues related to the crisis and meeting with victims. In other words, the issue that had galvanized reform groups (and given them a good deal of publicity) was co-opted by the mainstream church, making their activism less necessary.
more at link
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Drale
(7,932 posts)every time there is the slightest change in the church, it spawns splinter groups that form there own churches.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I am just happy to see pushback within the church. Though I feel sure it will not be toppled, I am hopeful that it might be nudged in a better direction.
Oregonian
(209 posts)were probably the bishops ordering nuns to focus more on homophobia and anti-choice efforts than helping the poor.
MineralMan
(146,284 posts)Nothing new here at all. The RCC has been shedding splinter denominations for a very, very long time, and will continue to do so. It's the nature of religion to splinter into smaller and smaller fragments. Eventually, everyone will be his or her own church.
rug
(82,333 posts)Oregonian
(209 posts)Unless you think some organization can speak for non-stamp collectors.
rug
(82,333 posts)Oregonian
(209 posts)90 million or so atheists and agnostics in the U.S.? It's not my job to prove that NOT all atheists are obliged to one group.
I'm certain you can find some groups that disbelieve in ghosts as well. Perhaps they're on the "we can't stand that Ghost Hunters TV show" website forum or something. I guess this means they're a monolithic political body, right?
rug
(82,333 posts)
Imagine that, 30,000 people wandering into the Reason Rally. Boy, I bet they were surprised.
Oregonian
(209 posts)First, not even CLOSE to all of these people are atheists. The Reason Rally is for those who disagree with religion holding sway over secular governments.
Second, they wouldn't be there if not for religion rearing its ugly head in the daily affairs of those who want to be free from it.
According to Wiki:
"Speakers urged those assembled to contact local and national representatives and ask them to support church-state separation, science education, marriage equality for gays and lesbians, and ending government support of faith-based organizations, among other causes.[5] "
They're not there to "promote a disbelief in God."
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)You nailed it with this...
First, not even CLOSE to all of these people are atheists. The Reason Rally is for those who disagree with religion holding sway over secular governments.
It wasn't to promote atheism, it was to promote REASON. And reason is not the strong suit of many believers.
rug
(82,333 posts)Are you saying these groups, many of which are organized to promote atheism, did not organize this rally as an expression of those opinion?
Or are you saying that their opinions are as coincidental as the presence of those who attended?
Before you answer, check the speeches.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)
Does this group speak for all Christians? There will be many very surprised to find that out.
rug
(82,333 posts)cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)While many in attendance may share the trait of non-belief, that is not what brought them there. And the religious beliefs of those who do believe in attendance was also not the motivating factor that brought them there either.
rug
(82,333 posts)The question is, which of them was the primary impetus behind the rally? The word secular is not in the title of the event.
MineralMan
(146,284 posts)Why wouldn't I hold that?
rug
(82,333 posts)Eventually, everyone will be his or her own nonbeliever.
Oregonian
(209 posts)It's only logical that each atheists holds independent views, because atheism isn't an organized view in any sense.
Unless you're talking about those who are members of scientific clubs, subscribers to scientific journals, etc. Then we're done talking atheism.
rug
(82,333 posts)There couldn't possibly be any overlap and common view because that might impel, is it possible?, organizing.
Response to rug (Reply #23)
Post removed
rug
(82,333 posts)You're treading on thin ice.
Oregonian
(209 posts)Which do you prefer?
rug
(82,333 posts)Oregonian
(209 posts)He was alive, then he was dead, then, according to your book, he re-animated. "Zombie" is what they call that in most circles.
But now you're offended? You see, the thing about being offended is that you're asking ME to take responsibility for YOUR feelings. That's bullshit. Handle your own hurt feelings.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)
I posted this picture as an OP, have a look.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/121845501
Oregonian
(209 posts)with that one, single meme. Christians burst blood vessels at the thought of me not bowing down to their fairy tale!
rug
(82,333 posts)What I am saying, using my own words, is that's a racist statement.
What does the term "Jew zombie" have to do with your hatred of religion?
As you're doing now, you could have simply said zombie. But you couldn't help yourself.
I'm also saying it's stupid. I daresay you know as little about zombie lore as you do about the doctrine of the Resurrection.
So, I am far from offended. I simply state that your posts reeks of racism, stupidity and bigotry.
Please forgive me if I offended you but I really don't care.
How is the descriptor "jewish" or "jew" racist?
Would you prefer "Hebrew"?
Seriously, I'm trying to wrap my mind out of your rabid intent at being offended and overly PC.
rug
(82,333 posts)Response to rug (Reply #41)
Post removed
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)Feel free to use a cartoon if you find it easier.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)And I can see where many might find it an offensive characterization of Jesus, but it neither disparages Jews or zombies, so I do not see how it can be considered antisemitic.
If antisemitism is defined as: Antisemitism (also spelled anti-semitism or anti-Semitism) is suspicion of, hatred toward, or discrimination against Jews for reasons connected to their Jewish heritage.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism
How does calling Jesus a "jew zombie" (which has been pointed out is factually correct, as Jesus was a Jew, and his ressurrection fits the definition of zombie) create a "suspicion of, hatred toward, or discrimination against Jews for reasons connected to their Jewish heritage?"
rug
(82,333 posts)Using "Jew" as an adjective to a mocking noun in pejorative sentence is the bread and butter of anti-Semites, especially those who wish to appear otherwise.
Do I really have to give you examples?
Read this.
http://www.lacan.com/badword.htm
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)While we always need to be sensitive to racism and bigotry, we also need to defend against being OVER-sensitive. That comment, IMO, walks right up to the line, but fails to cross it.
Response to rug (Reply #43)
Oregonian This message was self-deleted by its author.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,295 posts)The use of 'Jew' as an adjective has been held offensive for long enough to be in the Oxford English Dictionary:
...
Compounds
C1. General attrib. or as adj. That is a Jew; Jewish. (Such expressions now chiefly offensive, but not originally opprobrious.)
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)I just do not agree. As I stated to him above...
Oregonian
(209 posts)Instead of nitpicking bullshit that is NOT anti-semitic, and therefore insult those fighting against REAL anti-semitism?
rug
(82,333 posts)that was a nice OP and your contribution to the subject could be better than avoidance and/or putting up defensive barrier.
If working for change inside the system is OK in regard to Democratic Party, then it's OK also in regard to RCC. What would you change in RCC if you could?
rug
(82,333 posts)I'm addressing this post that asserts religion inevitably breaks into tinier and tiner groups, implying whatever the hell he's implying. That is patently not the case and it's an odd statement from someone who claims atheism is a collection of monads.
The OP is fine and has nothing to do with that comment.
Since when is challenging a false statement avoidance?
I'm speaking about avoiding to contribute your views to the OP as catholic insider and asking that you would do so.
rug
(82,333 posts)Nevertheless, I'll say something even though I'm not an "insider".
I'm most familiar with Dignity which began inside the Church as a ministry for gay Catholics in 1977, eight years after Stonewall. It was started by a priest and a nun but was quickly disapproved by the Church because it did not emphasize the necessity of chastity and explicitly rejected the notion that being gay is "intrinsically disordered". Instead, Cardinal Cooke in New York sponsored Courage as an alternative ministry in 1980. (Interestingly, its co-founder was Fr. Benedict Groeschel, of recent fame, who opined that some priests were "seduced".) Dignity will never receive approval and Courage will never receive credible support. I consider Dignity to be an important counterweight to official Church teaching but I don't think it intends to or will ever become an alternative "schismatic" church.
What I am most attracted to are those activists like the Berrigans who did great good without official Church approval. Theirs was witness, not schism. The Catholic Worker Movement has also done great work but has nevever been disapproved by the Church. I think the official position on them is wary skepticism.
There are many social justice and peace activists who work primarily with other umbrella movements completely outside the Catholic Church. The issues to them seems more important to them that any affiliation or approval.
Finally, the Nuns on the Bus are quite interesting. They are all in good standing even as their organizations are currently under Vaican scrutiny.
So, without reading the book, if his thesis is that "underground" movements will result in schismatic or alternative churches, I would say that is incorrect. These movements, some with, some without Church approval, are what keeps the Church honest. They are for the most part issue oriented and have no desire to create a different church. They are very good at pointing out what's wrong with many official positions and I expect they will be recorded as major factors in causing whatever change in the Church that does happem.
What are your feeling about female catholic ministry - Mother Bernadette Maria aka Sinead O'Connor being the most famous example giving the issue lot of attention - which is how I found out that " The most recent Gallup Poll shows that 65% of the 770 American Catholics queried favor women priests." http://articles.latimes.com/2000/jun/20/news/cl-42674
That issue, if pushed, is very schismatic, according to experience e.g. from protestantic state churches that have accepted female ministry, but the conservative schismatic minority against female ministry has remained very very small.
rug
(82,333 posts)From what I gather, the official objection boils down to, Jesus chose to be incarnated as a man, therefore only men can be priests. That's an oversimplification but I really don't see what else they're saying. If that is it, it's nonsense.
But until it changes, I don't see that Sinead and the women priest organizations http://www.womenpriests.org/index.asp will accomplish much to that end, other than drawing focused attention on the problem. A shadow church, or alternate church is of limited impact.
The Polish National Catholic Church, begun in Scranton, Pennsylvania in response to the domination of the American Catholic Church by an Irish hierarchy, is an example of the limited impact of an alternate church. http://www.pncc.org/
To me, pressure and persuasion, both from within and without, is the most effective method, even if it takes a long time.
maybe worth going schismatic and renouncing papal authority. But not for me to decide.
rug
(82,333 posts)They baptized me, now they're stuck with me.
tama
(9,137 posts)but then again I'm anti-authoritarian anarchist pagan and look issues from that point of view, which may limit my understanding of how hierarchical systems and minds work. Perhaps you mean something along the political analogy that first comes to my mind: "I was born and raised a Marxist socialist, and going schismatic/sectarian instead of my version of socialism taking over party and state would be essentially admitting defeat?
rug
(82,333 posts)As opposed to, you'll never change, good bye, I'm starting my own church.
And I'm am quite familiar with the splits, the revisionists, the hegemonists and the rest.
